G.R. No.

194068 July 9, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.BENJIE CONSORTE y FRANCO, Accused-Appellant.

Facts:

Appellant was a former conductor of Elizabeth Palmar’s jeepney plying the route ofAntipolo, Teresa and Morong, Rizal. Sometime in June 2000, Elizabeth’s residence wasrobbed and several personal belongings including cash were taken. Appellant was theonly one who had access to the house, aside from Elizabeth’s family. So Elizabeth’sbrother tailed appellant and found out that the latter pawned her tv set to FredericFrancisco. She then sued appellant for robbery. A hearing was scheduled on January23, 2001, but on the night of January 22, 2001, Elizabeth was murdered.

On January 22, 2001, Jose Palmar, Elizabeth’s husband, instructed Rolando Visbe tohaul feeds from Morong, Rizal and deliver them to their piggery in Binangonan, Rizal.Ashe was driving the jeepney, Rolando saw Elizabeth together with her 14-year olddaughter Myrna and her 3-year old nephew "Big Boy." They went with him to deliver thefeeds to Binangonan. On their way back to Morong, Rolando noticed appellant who waswearing a hat. When they got near him, Rolando slowed down and asked appellantwhere he was going. Appellant did not reply. Rolando veered to the right to avoid hittingappellant. In the process, the jeepney ran over a stone, lost its balance, and rolled into aditch. While struggling to release the vehicle, Rolando heard a gunshot. He lookedaround and saw appellant standing near the jeepney’s left rear, holding a handgun.Appellant immediately fled. Rolando then heard Myrna shouting "Ninong, may dugo siNanay!" They rushed Elizabeth to Angono District Hospital. But due to her fatal gunshotwound on the forehead, she died.The accused presented two witnesses, his sister-in –law and the testimony of theForensic Chemist to prove his alibi as his defense.

The trial court found appellant guilty of the crime of murder. The CA affirmed thedecision of the trial court and awarded damages to the victim’s heirs.

Issue:

Whether or not alibi as a defense is given much credence

Held:

Aalibi is an inherently weak defense and has always been viewed with disfavor by thecourts due to the facility with which it can be concocted. Indeed, denial is an intrinsicallyweak defense which must be buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability to meritcredibility. For alibi to prosper, appellant must prove not only that he was at some otherplace when the crime was committed but that it was physically impossible for him to beat the locus criminate the time of its commission. In the case at bench, the defensefailed to present convincing evidence to reinforce appellant’s denial and alibi. It issignificant to note that the distance between Binangonan (the scene of the crime) andAntipolo (where appellant claimed he was at the time of the incident in question) is onlyabout twenty (20) kilometers.

"Physical impossibility in relation to alibi takes into consideration not only thegeographical distance between the scene of the crime and the place where accusedmaintains he was, but more importantly, the accessibility between these points. In thiscase, the element of physical impossibility of appellant’s presence that fateful night atthe crime scene has not been established."

More importantly, the Court gives even less probative weight to a defense of alibi whenit is corroborated by friends and relatives. One can easily fabricate an alibi and askfriends and relatives to corroborate it. When a defense witness is a relative of anaccused whose defense is alibi, as in this case, courts have more reason to view suchtestimony with skepticism.